**Dairy Farming and the Stagnated Biogas Use in Rungwe District, Tanzania: An Investigation of the Constraining Factors**

Agnes Godfrey Mwakaje *Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania* 

## **1. Introduction**

310 Biogas

Sahlström, L. (2003): A review of survival of pathogenic bacteria in organic waste used in

Schleiss, K. & Barth, J. (2008): Use of compost and digestate: choosing the product

Siebert, S., Thelen-Jüngling, M. & Kehres, B. (2008). Development of quality assurance and

Stinner, W., Möller, K. & Leithold, G. (2008). Effect of biogas digestion of clover/grass-leys,

Szűcs, B., Simon, M. & Füleky, G. (2006). Anaerobic pre-treatment effects on the aerobic

Tambone, F., Genevini, P. & Adani, P. (2007). The effect of short-term compost application

ORBIT 2006, Weimar, 13-15 September, 2006. Part 2, pp. 425-434.

*& Utilization,* Vol. 15, No. 3, (July 2007), pp. 176-183, ISSN 1065-657X Tambone, F., Genevini, P., D'Imporzano, G. & Adani, F. (2009). Assessing amendment

0960852

Solothurn, Switzerland. pp. 199-208.

(*ISBN 3-935974-19-1*)

125-134, ISSN 1161-0301

1998), pp. 379-384, ISSN 0927-7757

ISSN 0927-7757

978-963-7067-19-8.

biogas plants. *Bioresource Technology,* Vol. 87, No.2, (April 2003), pp. 161-166, ISSN

depending of utilizastion, strategy and aim. In: Fuchs Jacques G., Thomas Kupper, Lucius Tamm & Kaarina Schenk (Eds.) (2008): Compost and digestate: sustainability, benefits, impacts for the environment and for plant production. Proceedings of the international congress CODIS 2008, February 27-29, 2008,

quality characteristics of composts and digestates in Germany. Proceedings of the Internationale Conference ORBIT 2008, Wageningen, 13-16 October, 2008. CD-ROM

cover crops and crop residues on nitrogen cycle and crop yield in organic stockless farming system. *European Journal of Agronomy,* Vol. 29, No. 2-3, (August 2008), pp.

degradability of waste water sludge. Proceedings of the Internationale Conference

on soil chemical properties and on nutritional status of maize plant. *Compost Science* 

properties of digestate by studying the organic matter composition and the degree of biological stability during the anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of MSW. *Bioresource Technology,* Vol. 100, No. 12, (June 2009), pp. 3140–3142, ISSN 09608524 Tambone, F., Scaglia, B., D'Imporzano, G. Schievano, A., Orzi, V., Salati, S. & Adani, F.

(2010). Assessing amendment and fertilizing properties of digestates from anaerobic digestion through a comparative study with digestated sludge and compost. *Chemosphere,* Vol. 81, No. 5, (Oktocer 2010), pp. 577-583, ISSN 0045-6535 Tombácz, E., Szekeres, M.,.Baranyi, L. & Micheli, E. (1998). Surface modification of clay

minerals by organic polyions. *Colloids and Surfaces* A., Vol. 141, No. 3, (November

aquatic systems, *Colloids and Surfaces*, A, Vol. 151, No. 1, (June 1999), pp. 233-244,

residues on the easily soluble macro- and microelement content of soil. Trace elements in the food chain. Vol. 3. Deficiency or excess of trace elements in the environment as a risk of health. Pp. 252-256. Publ.: Working Committe on Trace Elements and Institute of Materials and Environmental Chemistry of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest. Eds.: Szilágyi M, Szentmihályi K. ISBN

efficiency for biogas-production through anaerobic co-fermentation of slurry with organic waste. *Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, Agriculture, Ecosystems and* 

Tombácz, E., Filipcsei, G., Szekeres, M, & Gingl, Z. (1999) Particle aggregation in complex

Vágó, I., Kátai J., Makádi M. & Balla Kovács A. (2009). Effects of biogas fermentation

Wulf, S., Jäger, P. & Döhler, H. (2006). Balancing of greenhouse gas emissions and economic

*Environment,* Vol. 112, No. 2-3, (February 2006), pp. 178-185, ISSN 0167-8809

Dairy farming plays a key role in the lives of poor, rural people in developing countries, providing a major proportion of their cash income, capital assets, draught power, fuel and fertilizer. Small-scale dairying produces valuable food products and provides a regular income and work. Dairying also provides much of the cash needed to perform other socioeconomic activities. Milk production generates reliable incomes to meet household livelihoods (Somda et al., 2005). Possession of dairy animals means also financial security, status, self-confidence and an opportunity to have some control over their live (Ramkumar, 2004). It is also more labour intensive and supports substantial employment in production, processing and marketing. This is partly because dairy production often require the introduction of specialised dairy breeds and increased levels of inputs (nutrition and health care) and good linkages to markets, both for milk sales and input acquisition. In Kenya dairy farming has become a very significant source of income and food for an estimated 625,000 smallholder producer households and for those involved in the marketing of milk, in total some 25% of all households in Kenya benefit from dairy farming (Muriuki et al., 2001). In Tanzania about 700 000 dairy cattle are available under smallholder farmers, with an average of 4 cows per household, there might be 175 households keeping indoor fed dairy cattle in Tanzania. Dairy farming in Tanzania is estimated to grow at a rate of 6% per year and there are about 190,000 registered farmers currently (Swai and Kurimuribo, 2011). Most of these cattle are kept in the highland and relatively cold regions of Arusha, Mbeya, Kagera, Iringa and Morogoro. Smallholder dairy farming in Tanzania has had a significant impact on poverty alleviation in terms of income, education, food security and stabilizing farm incomes (Kisusu et al., 2000).

On the other hand, dairy manure is potential for biogas generation. Dairy manure biogas digester technology has proven to be technically and economically feasible and successful in many applications (Schwengels, 2009). Technology pathways involving biogas, natural gas or electricity are advantageous (Hedegaard *et al* 2008) for rural development. Empirical evidence suggests that each household can realise up to US\$ 724 by replacing wood use with biogas, apart from other positive impacts to the environment (Langeni *et al.,* 2010). A study by the Institute of Resource Assessment (IRA), University of Dar es Salaam, in 2005, shows a reduction of firewood consumption from 700 to 145m3 for Lomwe Secondary

Dairy Farming and the Stagnated Biogas

**2.1 Dairy sector and biogas use in Rungwe district** 

2008).

income to the producer.

clean energy like biogas.

Use in Rungwe District, Tanzania: An Investigation of the Constraining Factors 313

the two regions of Kilimanjaro and Arusha in a country with more than 20 regions. On the other hand, the Ministry of energy and minerals' activities were concentrated in the Dar es Salaam region where unfortunately indoor fed dairy cattle are limited to a few households. Reacting to some of these criticisms, the government of Tanzania changed the biogas technology dissemination strategy in the country. In the years starting 2000 polythene tubular digesters were promoted to reduce production cost through using local materials and simplified installation and operation costs (Mwakaje, 2008). The type of plastic needed for polythene was locally manufactured in Tanzania, maintenance and repair were simple, cheap, and did not require skilled labour and the cost of construction was low. A model promoted by the Sustainable Rural Development (SURUDE) was a low-cost design suitable for poor farmers (CEBITEC, 2003) in rural areas. The material cost was about US\$ 100. However, this type of biodigester had one major disadvantage in that it could be easily sabotaged (torn out). This is because the plastic materials of the biodigestor are normally placed on the surface outside the house and therefore could easily be destroyed (Mwakaje

Rungwe district lies between latitudes 8030 E and 9030 E and longitudes 330S and 340 S. It is one of the six districts of Mbeya Region, located in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. The other districts are Kyela, Chunya, Ileje, Mbeya Rural and Mbozi. Rungwe district has a total area of 2211 sq. km of which 75% is arable land (URT, 1997). Of the remaining area, 44.5 sq.

The district is one of the densely populated districts in Tanzania (URT, 2002) with a population of 307,270, which is equivalent to 139 persons per square kilometre with an annual growth rate of 0.9% (URT 2010). The district has limited natural vegetation which varies from upper montane forest at higher elevations to the wet woodland (Miombo) at lower elevations. Forestry reserve accounts for 43,749.9 ha and other forests about 65,813 ha (URT, 2008). In recent years, much of this natural vegetation has been cleared/transformed for agriculture, for habitation, and firewood. Most of the remaining natural vegetation is found in government forest reserves and in locally protected areas, though even these areas

Rungwe district put great importance to livestock development particularly dairy cattle as one of the major economic activities. In 2005 the district had 26,137 indoor fed dairy cattle with milk production estimated to be 41,000,000 litres per year. The district has 74,450 households and almost half of the households keep some cattle or pigs in their homestead with an average of between 2-6 cattle (Mwakaje, 2008). Smallholder dairy production is an important undertaking and, if adequately supported by appropriate policies and adaptive research technologies, it may contribute significantly towards the household economy, selfsufficiency in milk and national gross domestic product (Swai and Kimambo, 2011). Walshe et al (1991) comments that where there is access to a market, dairying is preferred to meat production since it makes more efficient use of feed resources and provides a regular

Promotion of smallholder dairy farming can solve the problem of rural poor accessing to

km is covered by forest while 498.3 sq. km is either mountainous or residential areas.

have been subjected to varying degrees of people driven disturbances.

School following the adoption of biogas technology which meant a reduction Energy saved annually is approximately 6.7 Terra Joules (T.J) (a reduction of 78.9%) of CO2 annually (IRA, 2005).

#### **2. Biogas development trend in Tanzania**

Biogas technology utilizing animal waste is not new in Tanzania; it was introduced in the country as early as the 1950s by private stakeholders. In 1975, the government through the Small Industries Development Organisation (SIDO) introduced the Indian design (floating gasholder digester) in primary and secondary schools, rural health centres and a number of other institutions. In 1982, the Parastatal Organization Centre for Agricultural Mechanization and Rural Technology (CAMARTEC) increased the dissemination of this technology in the northern regions. About 1 year later, that is around 1983, technical cooperation between Tanzania and the Federal Republic of Germany led to the introduction of the Biogas Extension Services (BES). CAMARTEC and the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) were in-charge of implementing this project and the latter seconded an interdisciplinary team of social scientists, mechanical engineers and agriculturists to Tanzania (Sasse et al., 1991). Between 1984–1985 more strategies were developed to boost biogas adoption. Household plants were offered with a digester volume of 8, 12 and 16m3, and in 1990 the programme comprised standardized plants of sizes 12, 16, 30 and 50m3 for households and institutions (Mwakaje, 2008). The development work towards sustainable reliability and user friendliness resulted in extensive integration of biogas plants into the work routines of farmers. Over the period, CAMARTEC were involved in building capacity by training technicians in biogas plant construction. A ''biogas unit'' scheme was introduced and this integrated biogas plants, livestock housing with a concrete floor (Mwakaje, 2008). CAMARTEC was also providing advice on the utilization of slurry, gas pipeline systems, burners and lamps; and women were specifically instructed on how to use and manage the plants. The Ministry of Energy and Minerals in collaboration with donors was also promoting biogas use in the Dar es Salaam region. Its main activity was to support the dissemination of biogas technology in the region through facilitating training for private craftsmen, built demonstration plants and undertaking monitoring and evaluation. Up to 1989, only 200 units of biogas had been installed all over the country (Sasse et al., 1991) but in 1992 this had increased to 600 plants national-wide. Nevertheless, as Mwakaje (2008) noted despite all the efforts, the biogas technology did not diffuse much to the rural poor communities in many parts of the country where indoor fed dairy cattle are kept. Reasons for this poor diffusion of the biogas technology included high installation and maintenance costs and inadequate awareness about the technology. The conventional units being built in the country were large and expensive, costing approximately US\$ 1400 for one unit (Rutamu, 1991) to USD 2200 depending on the size of digester (IRA, 2005). Furthermore, repair and maintenance required highly skilled labour and most component parts, constructed mainly from concrete and steel, were far out of the financial reach of smallholder farmers (Mwakaje, 2008). This slow pace of biogas technology development by CAMARTEC raised a number of criticisms among stakeholders. For example, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanzania (ELCT) blamed CAMARTEC its commercially oriented and strictly standardized dissemination programme. The ELCT claimed that the programme had not been adapted to Tanzanian conditions as it only served the rich farmers (Sasse et al., 1991). But also most of the CAMATERC activities were concentrated mainly in

School following the adoption of biogas technology which meant a reduction Energy saved annually is approximately 6.7 Terra Joules (T.J) (a reduction of 78.9%) of CO2 annually (IRA,

Biogas technology utilizing animal waste is not new in Tanzania; it was introduced in the country as early as the 1950s by private stakeholders. In 1975, the government through the Small Industries Development Organisation (SIDO) introduced the Indian design (floating gasholder digester) in primary and secondary schools, rural health centres and a number of other institutions. In 1982, the Parastatal Organization Centre for Agricultural Mechanization and Rural Technology (CAMARTEC) increased the dissemination of this technology in the northern regions. About 1 year later, that is around 1983, technical cooperation between Tanzania and the Federal Republic of Germany led to the introduction of the Biogas Extension Services (BES). CAMARTEC and the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) were in-charge of implementing this project and the latter seconded an interdisciplinary team of social scientists, mechanical engineers and agriculturists to Tanzania (Sasse et al., 1991). Between 1984–1985 more strategies were developed to boost biogas adoption. Household plants were offered with a digester volume of 8, 12 and 16m3, and in 1990 the programme comprised standardized plants of sizes 12, 16, 30 and 50m3 for households and institutions (Mwakaje, 2008). The development work towards sustainable reliability and user friendliness resulted in extensive integration of biogas plants into the work routines of farmers. Over the period, CAMARTEC were involved in building capacity by training technicians in biogas plant construction. A ''biogas unit'' scheme was introduced and this integrated biogas plants, livestock housing with a concrete floor (Mwakaje, 2008). CAMARTEC was also providing advice on the utilization of slurry, gas pipeline systems, burners and lamps; and women were specifically instructed on how to use and manage the plants. The Ministry of Energy and Minerals in collaboration with donors was also promoting biogas use in the Dar es Salaam region. Its main activity was to support the dissemination of biogas technology in the region through facilitating training for private craftsmen, built demonstration plants and undertaking monitoring and evaluation. Up to 1989, only 200 units of biogas had been installed all over the country (Sasse et al., 1991) but in 1992 this had increased to 600 plants national-wide. Nevertheless, as Mwakaje (2008) noted despite all the efforts, the biogas technology did not diffuse much to the rural poor communities in many parts of the country where indoor fed dairy cattle are kept. Reasons for this poor diffusion of the biogas technology included high installation and maintenance costs and inadequate awareness about the technology. The conventional units being built in the country were large and expensive, costing approximately US\$ 1400 for one unit (Rutamu, 1991) to USD 2200 depending on the size of digester (IRA, 2005). Furthermore, repair and maintenance required highly skilled labour and most component parts, constructed mainly from concrete and steel, were far out of the financial reach of smallholder farmers (Mwakaje, 2008). This slow pace of biogas technology development by CAMARTEC raised a number of criticisms among stakeholders. For example, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanzania (ELCT) blamed CAMARTEC its commercially oriented and strictly standardized dissemination programme. The ELCT claimed that the programme had not been adapted to Tanzanian conditions as it only served the rich farmers (Sasse et al., 1991). But also most of the CAMATERC activities were concentrated mainly in

2005).

**2. Biogas development trend in Tanzania** 

the two regions of Kilimanjaro and Arusha in a country with more than 20 regions. On the other hand, the Ministry of energy and minerals' activities were concentrated in the Dar es Salaam region where unfortunately indoor fed dairy cattle are limited to a few households.

Reacting to some of these criticisms, the government of Tanzania changed the biogas technology dissemination strategy in the country. In the years starting 2000 polythene tubular digesters were promoted to reduce production cost through using local materials and simplified installation and operation costs (Mwakaje, 2008). The type of plastic needed for polythene was locally manufactured in Tanzania, maintenance and repair were simple, cheap, and did not require skilled labour and the cost of construction was low. A model promoted by the Sustainable Rural Development (SURUDE) was a low-cost design suitable for poor farmers (CEBITEC, 2003) in rural areas. The material cost was about US\$ 100. However, this type of biodigester had one major disadvantage in that it could be easily sabotaged (torn out). This is because the plastic materials of the biodigestor are normally placed on the surface outside the house and therefore could easily be destroyed (Mwakaje 2008).
